VIJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was an incident of dacoity in a running train on 9/9/1983, in which, the complainants, who were Passengers, were looted. The dacoits snatched from them then belonging and cash money. The present appellant was taken into custody on 17/9/1983. A pistol was recovered from him vide seizure memo Ex. P. 13. His house was searched and vide memo Ex. P-23 several articles and clothes of daily use, said to be belonging to the passengers, were seized. The Tahsildar Shri B.S. Bains (PW -12) conducted an identification Parade on 6/10/1983. Complainant Raj Kumar Rajput (P.W. 12) could only identify the appellant vide identification memo Ex, P-3.

(2.) The learned judge of the trial court in paragraph 13 of his judgment under appeal held that the pistol recovered vide Ex. P-13, from the appellant is not proved to have been used in the commission of dacoity. He also held that the articles seized (Ex. P-23) from his house, were not found to be stolen property as it was never identified and claimed as their property by the complainant The learned Trialludge, however, convicted the accused for the offences under Section 395/397 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to R.I. for 10 years only on the basisT of the testimony of P.W. 2 Raj Kumar Rajput and the identification memo Ex. P-3.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the accused-appellant assails the conviction and submits that, in the circumstance, it is un-safe to convict the accused on the identification by a single witness, which may be a chance factor. It is also argued that there has been about 18 day's delay in holding the identification parade from the date of the arrest of the accused and that the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution. It is further argued that the normal ratio between the under trials and the persons to be mixed should be in the proportion of 1:5, which is not maintained in this case. The ratio was on 1:3. For the all above reasons, according to the learned Counsel, conviction could not be based on the basis of identification of a single witness. Reliance is placed on Wakil Singh and others v. State of Bihar, Bali Ahir & Ors. v. State of Bihar, Anwar & Anr. v. State, Bankey Lal v. Kishan Lal and Anr.